Should islam be protected by the 1st Amendment? - Center for Security Policy

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should islam be protected by the 1st Amendment? - Center for Security Policy

Frank Gaffney [...], a former Reagan administration Pentagon official who heads a Washington think tank called the Center for Security Policy [...] has been making two interrelated arguments.

First, that the Muslim Brotherhood—which he claims seeks to replace the United States Constitution with a Caliphate based upon Sharia law—secretly controls most American mosques and Muslim organizations.

Second, that Islam is not actually a religion. It is a totalitarian political ideology. Thus, its adherents should be treated not like Christians or Jews, but like American Nazis during World War II.

[...] the government introduced into evidence a document called the “Explanatory Memorandum,” written by a Muslim Brother in 1991, which declares that the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal “in America is a kind of grand Jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.

A 2013 Center for Security Policy paper calls the memorandum a “Rosetta stone” for understanding Muslim subversion in the United States

Gaffney and his allies view Sharia not as a religious code but as “a totalitarian ideology cloaked in religious garb.” Muslims who adhere to it, therefore, should be treated not like Jews who adhere to Halacha, the body of Jewish law, or Catholics who adhere to Canon law, but like Americans who espoused “communism, fascism, National Socialism, or Japanese imperialism” during times of war.

They should be treated, in other words, like people seeking to overthrow the United States government. “Far from being entitled to the protections of our Constitution under the principle of freedom of religion,” Gaffney has argued, Sharia “is actually a seditious assault on our Constitution which we are obliged to prosecute, not protect.”

A January 2015 Center for Security Policy report declared that, “Over eighty percent of U.S. mosques have been shown to be shariah-adherent … They are incubators of, at best, subversion and, at worst, violence and should be treated accordingly.”

ACT’s agenda closely parallels Gaffney’s. It uses the specter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law to depict American Muslim political participation as a security threat. ACT tries to ban the use of Sharia in American courts. It seeks to prevent the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) from lobbying state legislatures. It tries to remove from textbooks any references that equate Islam with Judaism and Christianity.

[...] it evenopposes the sale of Halal food. In 2007, a questioner asked Gabriel, “Should we resist Muslims who want to seek political office in this nation?” She replied, “Absolutely. If a Muslim who has—who is — a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah … this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.”

“I don’t see Islam as a religion. I see it as a political ideology … it will mask itself as a religion globally because, especially in the west, especially in the United States, because it can hide behind and protect itself behind what we call freedom of religion.” - General Michael Flynn

Ann Corcoran had published the CSP report that urged Americans to “speak up against the opening of more mosques in your neighborhoods,” to “say no” to requests for “special Halal food section[s]” and to oppose efforts to require “local government to pay for a Muslim cemetery.” Citing Corcoran, Trump expressed his outrage that “if you come from Europe, you’re European, you’ve done great in school, you want to come, you want to come to the United States you can’t get in, but if you’re Muslim, you can get in.”

The report that Corcoran authored in March 2015 called for “a complete halt, with the goal of beginning to reverse, Muslim migration to the West.”

[...] the Center issued a white paper that argued that the government should “allow statements by non-citizens supporting Sharia to be used as grounds for exclusion” from the United States.

[...] the North American Islamist Trust (NAIT), a group explicitly mentioned as among the “United States-Muslim Brotherhood affiliates” in a 2015 Senate bill to designate the Brotherhood a terrorist group that Jeff Sessions cosponsored. Because lay people, not clergy or professional staff, manage most American mosques, they often transfer ownership of their property to NAIT. Local leaders manage the mosque and make decisions about religious practice. NAIT serves as a silent owner and trustee.

Some mosques invest their money through NAIT as well. Under authority granted it after 9/11, the Treasury Department can freeze an institution’s assets merely by launching an investigation into whether it has an “association” with a designated terrorist group. Were Trump’s Treasury Department to do that to NAIT, it could put hundreds of American mosques in financial and legal jeopardy.

The Obama administration tried to excise anti-Muslim material from the counter-terrorism training given to members of the military and the FBI. But Sebastian Gorka has declared that, “For Americans to properly understand the threat of global jihad, the politically motivated censorship of government analysis, training and education must end.”

His wife, Katherine Gorka, who was named to the Department of Homeland Security’s transition team, has also denounced the Obama administration for “excising all reference to Islam and blacklisting many of the nation’s top experts on the Islamist threat” from government training.

The freedoms outlined in the Constitution were never intended for a multicultural abomination like the USA has become. It would have been unthinkable for any sensible person before the age of cultural marxism to define this mish-mash of disparate peoples and cultures as a "nation," but media does that on a regular basis now, true to the form of those controlling it...

John 8:44 New International Version (NIV)44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Most people think as they are trained to think, and most people make a majority.

Thomas Jefferson had a Quran in his library. He was aware that Islam was a religion and would have had it excluded from the Constitution otherwise.
I would kick the Jews out long before the Muslims

I once had a translation of the Krumm-Ra , too ,
and all translations I find now on the net , differ ;
and it seems , that the Korach had been modified
for making a more "good-doer" impression to the
occupied native European folks .

I myself have several bibles and korbans on older
smartphones .

And the Islam had been no direct threat to the USA ,
but it might be worth to make a time list , that compares
the expansion of the islam octobremans into south-east Europe
after the fall of the wall of Byzance , with at that time the
Americas being detected and settled ...

Might have some taste of White Flight from Europe ,
to get away from islamic hordes occupying the nightboerhood ...

Thomas Jefferson was basically a limousine liberal. The country is what it is today because he was elevated to virtual godhood. Nations are NOT IDEAS, and to define them as such is Orwellian. IT.IS.A.LIE.

Nations are extended families. We are bound by blood and blood alone. Every people outside "the west" knows this like they know the grass is green and the sky is blue, but we have been brainwashed by constant conditioning to believe it is not so.

Most people think as they are trained to think, and most people make a majority.